I have to confess that I really do want to like the Sarkozy’s.  I find President Sarkozy endlessly entertaining, though sometimes more for gaffes that would be simply unheard of in U.S. politics than for his policy (take, for instance, his recent insult sans apology episode).  And Carla Bruni, though her past may not speak well of her, has been a model (no pun intended) of decorum since she assumed her role as Mrs. Sarkozy. 

However, there is simply no excuse for the blatant errors in thought that have been coming out of Sarkozy’s mouth recently.  For example, in a conference he led with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss the future of capitalism, the underlying assumption of his argument was that, “In capitalism of the 21^st century, there is room for the state.”  A few weeks earlier, when addressing the E.U., Sarkozy said something similar, “Laissez-faire, c’est fini.  We will intervene massively whenever a strategic enterprise needs our money.”  It is thinking like this that will deepen the current crisis by increasing instability in the market.  And, on top of that, where did he, a representative of the government, come up with the idea of “our” money?  Government doesn’t produce anything of its own accord (see this excellent account of where government gets stimulus ‘money’).

I’m reminded of what Ludwig von Mises said in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, “Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization.  Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions.  There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism” (pp. 64-65).  It’s like those Ivory commercials, in which they claim their soap is 99% pure.  If their soap contains just one percent of impurity, it is not, by definition, “pure.”  Something similar could be said for government intervention into ‘free’ markets.  If the government is intervening in the ‘free’ market, is it really free? MM